Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “cross-section layer” to “cross-sectional layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite “the cross-sectional layers”, however the preceding limitations are different, for example, claim 1 recites a plurality of cross-sectional layers, hence claims 2-4 should recite accordingly and considering the antecedent basis, for example, the plurality of cross-sectional layers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-10, 13, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites corresponding portions of the cross-sectional layers. It is not clear what “corresponding portions” refer to and what portion corresponds to what portion.
Claim 8 recites a first and second platform. Claim 1 also recites one or more platforms. It is not clear if the platforms of claim 8 are included in the platforms of claim 1 or if they are separate platforms.
Claims 8, 9, and 10 recite the limitation "the cross-sectional layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation " the outermost cross-sectional layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the compound stacked 3D airfoil geometry provides efficiency improvements of at least 0.9 points.” It is not clear what the reference base is for the 0.9 points improvement. In other words, it is not clear how much is 0.9 points, and improvement over what structure. Moreover, if by improvement applicant meant a comparison between the prior art or another turbocharger (that is not recited) and their invention, it is noted that the claim can only recite the invention in its current form, not the non-existent unknown previous versions. In other words, the claim cannot make comparison between their current invention and another structure that is outside of the scope of the current invention, including the intermediate versions of their invention or general conventional prior art. Moreover, since the claim doesn’t define a specific vane as a plane of reference, one can find a vane over which the current claimed vane has 0.9 points improvement. Furthermore, it is not clear if the 0.9 points improvement is the result of the invention or if there are other non-recited conditions that need to be met so that the invention make a 0.9 points improvement. If there are other conditions that need to be met, it is not clear what they are. In other words, it is not clear exactly what structure a prior art should have so it makes a 0.9 points improvement. Note that claim 18 is an apparatus type claim and “provides efficiency improvements” is a function of the apparatus. The examiner interprets the 0.9 points improvement as a result of the invention. In other words, a vane that meets the recited limitation would have a 0.9 points improvement.
Claim 18 recites positive and negative angles between 0 and another value. It is not clear if 0 is included in the range or not. If it is, it is not clear if 0 would be considered positive or negative.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morita et al. (US 2022/0090506), referred to hereinafter as Morita.
With regard to claim 1, Morita discloses a fixed three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the fixed vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub (44, 46, see [0030], Fig. 1, 7); and a plurality of 3D fixed airfoil vanes (73) coupled to the one or more platforms (Fig. 1, 7), each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge (73a) and a trailing edge (73b) and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes (Fig. 2A), and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape (Fig. 2B, 3, [0036], [0039]. Note that the claim doesn’t define a plane of reference or direction for the height).
With regard to claim 2, Morita further discloses that the cross-sectional layers have different lean angles, different sweep angles, or both, relative to each other (see [0039] disclosing that the suction side 73d and the pressure side 73c, which are two side surfaces of the nozzle vane 73, are inclined. Also see Fig. 2A and 2B).
With regard to claim 3, Morita further discloses that a portion of at least some of the cross-sectional layers have non-zero twist angles (Fig. 3. See [0037] disclosing that the nozzle vanes 73 are twisted).
With regard to claim 4, Morita further discloses that corresponding portions of the cross-sectional layers have different non-zero twist angles (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2022/0090506), referred to hereinafter as Morita in view of Mohamed et al. (US 2011/0314808), referred to hereinafter as Mohamed.
With regard to claims 5-6:
Morita discloses the fixed vane assembly of claim 4, as set forth above.
Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that the trailing edge and the leading edge are configured at a negative non-zero sweep angle.
However, Mohamed, teaches a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub; and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms, each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes, and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape. Mohamed further teaches that the trailing edge and the leading edge are configured at a negative non-zero sweep angle (Fig. 4, 6-10). Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely contour blending, to improve similar devices in the same way, such that the trailing edge and the leading edge are configured at a negative non-zero sweep angle.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that a leading edge of a cross-section layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a positive non-zero twist angle; and a leading edge of an additionally cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a negative non-zero twist angle (Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10. Note that the claims do not define a plane of reference for positive and negative).
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that the cross-sectional layer is a most proximate cross-sectional layer to a first platform, and wherein the additional cross-sectional layer is most proximate cross-sectional layer to a second platform (Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10. Note that claim recites “proximate” which is a broad limitation. Also note that the length of each layer is not specifically recited, hence a layer can have any length).
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses one or more intervening layers disposed along the vane height between the cross-sectional layer and the additional cross-sectional layer (Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that the one or more intervening layers has a twist angle that is between the positive non-zero twist of the cross-sectional layer and the negative cross-sectional twist of the additionally cross-sectional layer (Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10).
With regard to claims 11, 12, 14:
Morita discloses the fixed vane assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that each cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a different chord length.
However, Mohamed, teaches a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub; and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms, each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes, and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape. Mohamed further teaches that each cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a different chord length (see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height). Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely contour blending, to improve similar devices in the same way, such that each cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a different chord length.
With regard to claim 13:
Morita discloses the fixed vane assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are longer than a chord length of one or more intervening cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers.
However, Mohamed, teaches a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub; and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms, each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes, and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape. Mohamed further teaches that each cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a different chord length (see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height). Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Furthermore, Mohamed teaches that a vane can be optimized by combining different characteristics, such as the chord length change in different layers, and achieve a vane with better characteristics for the particular conditions at hand ([0014]). Hence, Mohamed established a result effective variable optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different vanes with different chord length across layers through routine experimentation and choose a chord length distribution that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at a vane in which a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are longer than a chord length of one or more intervening cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2022/0090506), referred to hereinafter as Morita in view of Osako et al. (US 2014/0341729), referred to hereinafter as Osako.
With regard to claim 13:
Morita discloses the fixed vane assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are longer than a chord length of one or more intervening cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers.
However, Osako, teaches a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub; and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms, each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes, and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape. Osako further teaches that a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are longer than a chord length of one or more intervening cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2022/0090506), referred to hereinafter as Morita in view of Mohamed et al. (US 2011/0314808), referred to hereinafter as Mohamed.
With regard to claim 15:
Morita discloses a turbocharger system comprising: a turbine housing (33); a turbine wheel (35) within the turbine housing (Fig. 1, 7); and a fixed three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly positioned upstream of the turbine wheel (Fig. 1, 7), the fixed vane assembly comprising: a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes (73), each 3D airfoil vane having multiple cross-sectional layers stacked along the vane height (Fig. 2A, 2B); wherein the multiple cross-sectional layers have different cross-sectional airfoil shapes (Fig. 2B, 3, [0036], [0039]) and are arranged with variable lean angles relative to each other; wherein the multiple cross-sectional layers have non-zero twist angles that vary along the vane height.
Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose variable sweep angles and different chord lengths between the multiple cross-sectional layers.
However, Mohamed, teaches a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub; and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms, each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes, and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape. Mohamed further teaches variable sweep angles and different chord lengths between the multiple cross-sectional layers (Fig. 4, 6-10. Also see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height). Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely contour blending, to improve similar devices in the same way, such that the vane has variable sweep angles and different chord lengths between the multiple cross-sectional layers.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that each of the cross-sectional layers are configured at different lean angles relative to each other in the span (axial) direction for each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes (this is the result of the contour blending applied in claim 15. Moreover, see Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10. Note that there are no plane of reference for the span or axial direction).
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that the 3D vane further comprises a first flow surface and a second flow surface positioned between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the 3D vane, and wherein the first flow surface, the second flow surface, or both the first flow surface and the second flow surface are configured at a non-zero lean angle (Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2022/0090506), referred to hereinafter as Morita in view of Mohamed et al. (US 2011/0314808), referred to hereinafter as Mohamed.
With regard to claim 18:
Morita discloses a turbocharger nozzle assembly, comprising: an inner platform; an outer platform (see platforms 44 and 46); and a plurality of fixed three-dimensional (3D) vanes (73) extending between the inner platform and the outer platform (see [0030], Fig. 1, 7), each 3D vane having: a compound stacked 3D airfoil geometry comprising multiple cross-sectional layers between a hub end and a shroud end (Fig. 2B, 3, [0036], [0039]); a non-zero twist angle between -5 and +5 degrees that varies the orientation of the cross-sectional layers along the vane height (Fig. 3); a lean angle (see [0039] disclosing that the suction side 73d and the pressure side 73c, which are two side surfaces of the nozzle vane 73, are inclined. Also see Fig. 2A and 2B); wherein the compound stacked 3D airfoil geometry provides efficiency improvements of at least 0.9 points across engine load conditions between 25% and 100% load on the turbocharger nozzle assembly (Fig. 6).
Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that the lean angle is a positive lean angle between 0 and 10 degrees. Morita also does not appear to explicitly disclose a negative sweep angle between 0 and -25 degrees.
However, Mohamed, teaches a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub; and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms, each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes, and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape. Mohamed further teaches a positive lean angle between 0 and 10 degrees, and a negative sweep angle between 0 and -25 degrees (Fig. 6, 7, 10). Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely contour blending, to improve similar devices in the same way, such that the lean angle is a positive lean angle between 0 and 10 degrees, with a negative sweep angle between 0 and -25 degrees.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that the multiple cross-sectional layers are stacked linearly along the vane height (Morita, Fig. 2A, 2B, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10).
With regard to claim 20, the combination of Morita and Mohamed further discloses that the multiple cross-sectional layers are stacked along a curved path along the vane height (Morita, Fig. 3, Mohamed, Fig. 4, 6-10).
***************************************************************************************************
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed et al. (US 2011/0314808), referred to hereinafter as Mohamed in view of Morita et al. (US 2022/0090506), referred to hereinafter as Morita.
With regard to claim 1:
Mohamed discloses a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub (Fig. 2); and a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes coupled to the one or more platforms (Fig. 2-9), each of the 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge and a trailing edge and a hub surface and a shroud surface (Fig. 2-9), wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the 3D airfoil vanes (Fig. 2-9), and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape (Fig. 2-10. Also see [0014], [0017], [0018] in which Mohamed discloses contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, having any possible shape characteristic change such as lean, sweep, twist angle, as well as chord length variations across vane span).
Mohamed discloses a variable vane but its disclosure can also be used for a fixed vane because Mohamed discloses that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed discloses that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further discloses that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also discloses that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Nonetheless, Mohamed does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the 3D airfoil vanes can be fixed vanes.
However, Morita teaches a fixed three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the fixed vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub (44, 46, see [0030], Fig. 1); and a plurality of 3D fixed airfoil vanes (73) coupled to the one or more platforms (Fig. 1), each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge (73a) and a trailing edge (73b) and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes (Fig. 2A), and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape (Fig. 2B, 3, [0036], [0039]). Morita further teaches a variable 3D vane assembly for a turbocharger as an alternative to the fixed 3D vane assembly (Fig. 7), and teaches that the feature of having different cross-sectional airfoil shapes between the plurality of cross-sectional layers taught in the fixed 3D vane assembly can be equally useful in the variable 3D vane assembly as well ([Fig. 7, [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to do a simple substitution of one known element for another, namely the variable 3D vane of Mohamed with a fixed 3D vane, to obtain predictable results.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that the cross-sectional layers have different lean angles, different sweep angles, or both, relative to each other (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract, [0014], [0017], [0018]).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that a portion of at least some of the cross-sectional layers have non-zero twist angles (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract, [0014], [0017], [0018]).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that corresponding portions of the cross-sectional layers have different non-zero twist angles (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract, [0014], [0017], [0018]).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that the trailing edge, the leading edge, or both of the trailing edge and the leading edge are configured at a non-zero sweep angle (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract, [0014], [0017], [0018]).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that the trailing edge and the leading edge are configured at a negative non-zero sweep angle (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract, [0014], [0017], [0018]).
With regard to claims 7-10:
The combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses leading edges of the plurality of cross-sectional layers with a positive non-zero twist angle and negative non-zero twist angle (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract. See [0014], [0017], [0018] in which Mohamed discloses contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, having any possible shape characteristic change such as lean, sweep, twist angle, as well as chord length variations across vane span. Also see Fig. 6 with example positive and negative twist angles).
The combination of Mohamed and Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that a leading edge of a cross-section layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a positive non-zero twist angle; and a leading edge of an additionally cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a negative non-zero twist angle, the cross-sectional layer is a most proximate cross-sectional layer to a first platform, and wherein the additional cross-sectional layer is most proximate cross-sectional layer to a second platform, one or more intervening layers disposed along the vane height between the cross-sectional layer and the additional cross-sectional layer, the one or more intervening layers has a twist angle that is between the positive non-zero twist of the cross-sectional layer and the negative cross-sectional twist of the additionally cross-sectional layer.
However, Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Furthermore, Mohamed teaches that a vane can be optimized by combining different characteristics, such as the chord length change in different layers, and achieve a vane with better characteristics for the particular conditions at hand ([0014]). Hence, Mohamed established a result effective variable optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different vanes with different leading edge twist angle distribution across layers through routine experimentation and choose a leading edge twist angle distribution that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at the claimed vane in which a leading edge of a cross-section layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a positive non-zero twist angle; and a leading edge of an additionally cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a negative non-zero twist angle, the cross-sectional layer is a most proximate cross-sectional layer to a first platform, and wherein the additional cross-sectional layer is most proximate cross-sectional layer to a second platform, one or more intervening layers disposed along the vane height between the cross-sectional layer and the additional cross-sectional layer, the one or more intervening layers has a twist angle that is between the positive non-zero twist of the cross-sectional layer and the negative cross-sectional twist of the additionally cross-sectional layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that at least two cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers have different chord lengths (Mohamed, see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that each cross-sectional layer of the plurality of cross-sectional layers has a different chord length (Mohamed, see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height).
With regard to claim 13:
The combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses different chord lengths (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract. See [0014], [0017], [0018] in which Mohamed discloses contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, having any possible shape characteristic change such as lean, sweep, twist angle, as well as chord length variations across vane span. Also see Fig. 6 with example positive and negative twist angles).
The combination of Mohamed and Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are longer than a chord length of one or more intervening cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers.
However, Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Furthermore, Mohamed teaches that a vane can be optimized by combining different characteristics, such as the chord length change in different layers, and achieve a vane with better characteristics for the particular conditions at hand ([0014]). Hence, Mohamed established a result effective variable optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different vanes with different chord length distribution across layers through routine experimentation and choose a chord length distribution that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at the claimed vane in which a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are longer than a chord length of one or more intervening cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that a chord length of each of the outermost cross-sectional layers of the plurality of cross-sectional layers are different (Mohamed, see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height).
With regard to claim 15:
Mohamed discloses a turbocharger system comprising: a turbine housing (260, Fig. 2); a turbine wheel (204) within the turbine housing (Fig. 2); and a three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly positioned upstream of the turbine wheel (Fig. 2), the vane assembly comprising: a plurality of 3D airfoil vanes (Fig. 2-9), each 3D airfoil vane having multiple cross-sectional layers stacked along the vane height (Fig. 2-9); wherein the multiple cross-sectional layers have different cross-sectional airfoil shapes and are arranged with variable lean and sweep angles relative to each other (Fig. 2-10); wherein the multiple cross-sectional layers have non-zero twist angles that vary along the vane height (Fig. 2-10), and wherein the multiple cross-sectional layers have different chord lengths (see [0014] disclosing that the “length from leading edge to trailing edge”, which is the chord length, varies with respect to the vane height. Also see [0014], [0017], [0018] in which Mohamed discloses contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, having any possible shape characteristic change such as lean, sweep, twist angle, as well as chord length variations across vane span).
Mohamed discloses a variable vane but its disclosure can also be used for a fixed vane because Mohamed discloses that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed discloses that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further discloses that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also discloses that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Nonetheless, Mohamed does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the 3D airfoil vanes can be fixed vanes.
However, Morita teaches a fixed three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the fixed vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub (44, 46, see [0030], Fig. 1); and a plurality of 3D fixed airfoil vanes (73) coupled to the one or more platforms (Fig. 1), each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge (73a) and a trailing edge (73b) and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes (Fig. 2A), and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape (Fig. 2B, 3, [0036], [0039]). Morita further teaches a variable 3D vane assembly for a turbocharger as an alternative to the fixed 3D vane assembly (Fig. 7), and teaches that the feature of having different cross-sectional airfoil shapes between the plurality of cross-sectional layers taught in the fixed 3D vane assembly can be equally useful in the variable 3D vane assembly as well ([Fig. 7, [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to do a simple substitution of one known element for another, namely the variable 3D vane of Mohamed with a fixed 3D vane, to obtain predictable results.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that each of the cross-sectional layers are configured at different lean angles relative to each other in the span (axial) direction for each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10).
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that the 3D vane further comprises a first flow surface and a second flow surface positioned between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the 3D vane, and wherein the first flow surface, the second flow surface, or both the first flow surface and the second flow surface are configured at a non-zero lean angle (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10).
With regard to claim 18:
Mohamed discloses a turbocharger nozzle assembly, comprising: an inner platform; an outer platform; and a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) vanes extending between the inner platform and the outer platform (Fig. 2), each 3D vane having: a compound stacked 3D airfoil geometry comprising multiple cross-sectional layers between a hub end and a shroud end (Fig. 2-10); a non-zero twist angle between -5 and +5 degrees that varies the orientation of the cross-sectional layers along the vane height (Fig. 4-10); a positive lean angle between 0 and 10 degrees (Fig. 4-10); and a negative sweep angle between 0 and -25 degrees (Fig. 4-10); wherein the compound stacked 3D airfoil geometry provides efficiency improvements of at least 0.9 points across engine load conditions between 25% and 100% load on the turbocharger nozzle assembly ([0015] . Also see [0014], [0017], [0018] in which Mohamed discloses contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, having any possible shape characteristic change such as lean, sweep, twist angle, as well as chord length variations across vane span).
Mohamed discloses a variable vane but its disclosure can also be used for a fixed vane because Mohamed discloses that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed discloses that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further discloses that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also discloses that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Nonetheless, Mohamed does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the 3D airfoil vanes can be fixed vanes.
However, Morita teaches a fixed three-dimensional (3D) vane assembly for a turbocharger, the fixed vane assembly comprising: one or more platforms including a shroud, a hub, or both a shroud and a hub (44, 46, see [0030], Fig. 1); and a plurality of 3D fixed airfoil vanes (73) coupled to the one or more platforms (Fig. 1), each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes comprising a pair of flow surfaces disposed between a leading edge (73a) and a trailing edge (73b) and a hub surface and a shroud surface, wherein the flow surfaces are formed of a plurality of cross-sectional layers taken along the vane height of each of the fixed 3D airfoil vanes (Fig. 2A), and wherein at least two or more of the layers have a different cross-sectional airfoil shape (Fig. 2B, 3, [0036], [0039]). Morita further teaches a variable 3D vane assembly for a turbocharger as an alternative to the fixed 3D vane assembly (Fig. 7), and teaches that the feature of having different cross-sectional airfoil shapes between the plurality of cross-sectional layers taught in the fixed 3D vane assembly can be equally useful in the variable 3D vane assembly as well ([Fig. 7, [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to do a simple substitution of one known element for another, namely the variable 3D vane of Mohamed with a fixed 3D vane, to obtain predictable results.
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim 18 is directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.II. The recitations of claim 18 attempt to define the invention by what it does rather than what it is. The combination of Mohamed and Morita discloses all of the claim elements of the current invention and is capable of performing the recited functions including providing efficiency improvements of at least 0.9 points across engine load conditions between 25% and 100% load on the turbocharger nozzle assembly.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that the multiple cross-sectional layers are stacked linearly along the vane height (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10).
With regard to claim 20:
The combination of Mohamed and Morita further discloses that the multiple cross-sectional layers are stacked along a path along the vane height (Mohamed, Fig. 4-10, abstract. See [0014], [0017], [0018] in which Mohamed discloses contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, having any possible shape characteristic change such as lean, sweep, twist angle, as well as chord length variations across vane span. Also see Fig. 6 with example positive and negative twist angles).
The combination of Mohamed and Morita does not appear to explicitly disclose that the path is curved.
However, Mohamed teaches that contour blending, which is combining different types of airfoil contours, can be used to optimize a vane, which results in enhanced performance characteristics, benefit torque reduction, and benefit wake reduction ([0014], [0030]). Although Mohamed refers to the torque on the axle of the variable vane, in the absence of an axle in a fixed vane the torques apply to the vane itself. Moreover, Mohamed teaches that the contour blending “enhance performance, particularly with respect to torque and wake” ([0030]), hence the performance enhancement is not solely because of the torque and wake. Mohamed further teaches that improved wake of a contour blended vane enables a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels ([0015]). Mohamed also teaches that contour blending reduces strain ([0038], [0043]). Mohamed further demonstrates that contour blending results in enhanced performance characteristics ([0039], [0040], Fig. 8, 9), and low strains ([0043], Fig. 10). These benefits can be realized for a fixed vane as well as a variable vane, for example, optimizing a vane, enhancing performance characteristics, torque reduction, wake reduction, enabling a turbine wheel to be created that is more efficient than conventional turbine wheels, and low strains. Furthermore, Mohamed teaches that a vane can be optimized by combining different characteristics, such as the chord length change in different layers, and achieve a vane with better characteristics for the particular conditions at hand ([0014]). Hence, Mohamed established a result effective variable optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different vanes with different stacking shapes across layers through routine experimentation and choose a stacking shape distribution that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at the claimed vane in which the stacking path is curved, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar vanes such as US10851797, US10480531, and US7255530.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights